in all seriousness what is fair and equitable

I don't have a problem with a levy on a special issue, and perhaps it applies here.

However in all fairness, a "flood" levy should be born by those living in flood prone areas on a permanent basis NOT a levy on all for 12 months.

If two of us have equal finances and one of us decides they can only build a small house on safe land 60 mins from the CBD and the other decides to build a big house on cheap (flood prone) land 30 mins from CBD then why is the first responsible for the foolishness of the other.

The second has taken a risk and benefited by a bigger house and closer to work and expects the prudent to subsidise his risk.

We all wish to help those in distress, but so often it seems the prudent are taxed for the risk takers.

I understand that those less well off don't always have good choices.

However, it seems more and more that those that make good choices, whether in housing or provision for retirement or child care etc, are given no benefit for their efforts.

Sure, some are so wealthy, perhaps it is easy, but while I have no problem with a democratic socialism, we seem to be creeping into a greater socialism.

The idea that business should contribute is scarey. Business should not give. They should strive to be competitive and prosperous. If a business gives away profits they will be "beaten" and fail. Let business succeed and employees can give or shareholders give. Don't burden the golden goose.

I believe business has no right to contribute to political parties or causes in general.

Let our businesses thrive and leave it up to shareholders to spend their income where they will.